Author
Topic: 9 year old kid beheaded in the name of religion (Read 1343 times)

Again, this happens again This time in Thailand. Religion needs to disappear right now so it can't be used to justify any of this barbaric actionsI included the link for the news but just in case they remove the video, is there a way to upload videos I have on my hard drive ?

Agreed. No chance I was ever going to open that video or story. The title says it all for me, how disgusting. It is funny that someone like Riley can come on here and whine about us being so damn angry all the time. We have to sit here helplessly and put up with this garbage happening all over the world. Remember that video on here posted a few months ago about the African folks getting burned alive? You guys I seriously had nightmares over that. These scary movies that come out now don't do anything to keep me up or frighten me in any way. However, videos like this one and the burned alive scare me for the sake of my children. It is reasons like this that I get so angry when I find out that my mother or the lady that lives with us has been teaching my 6 year old son about floating to Heaven. How do they expect me to react? I never had intentions of teaching him early on about God or no God. These knuckleheads force me to by attempting to indoctrinate him so early. I had no idea how quickly ideas with take shape in a child's mind. It is unreal. You can say it once and it blossoms. Very dangerous stuff this religion.

The only reason the separatists want separation is because they are muslim whilst the rest of the country is not. If they were bhuddist then they would have no reason to want to break away from their bhuddist compatriots.

It's a bit like the old 'the Troubles in Northern Ireland are political not religious' nonsense. Er, no the political divisions were and still are based on the religious differences. A religiously homogeneous population would not have a political environment that divides on sectarian lines.

The perpetrators of this vile act are scum but it takes idealogical or religious brainwashing to create such filth. There doesn't appear to be any particular political ideology to the separatist's actions beyond general objection to the Thai government (i.e. they don't seem to be marxist or fascist or some other kind of 'ist') therefore they'll undoubtedly have committed these murders safe in the knowledge that they are doing allah's will and they will receive their reward in paradise.

Of course, the theistically challenged will claim that their particular brand of god-bothering isn't like this and they do plenty of 'good'. It kind of makes me wonder just how many soup kitchens balance out beheading a child?

Whenever it comes to atrocities like beheading a 9 year old kid, things always seem complicated. In most cases, however, causality could be expressed with this equation:

1) atrocities = religion + politics + poor education + poverty

However, as Hickdive noted, the politics behind such vile acts is usually based on religion (as it is the case with the South Thailand insurgency). So we can simplify our equation a bit:

2)atrocities = 2 x religion + poor education + poverty

As a rule, education is a derivative of poverty – people are poorly educated, because their parents simply couldn't afford to send them to school. So we can further simplify our equation:

3)atrocities = 2 x religion + 2 x poverty

Poverty persists to be one of the greatest problems of humanity mostly because people can still easily justify big social stratification and thus put up with poverty. Religion is the main instrument for justifying social inequality: "because there will be retribution in the afterlife, you know". So here is our final equation:

4)atrocities = 4 x religion

So whenever it comes to atrocities like beheading a 9 year old kid, it all looks complicated, but only on the service. When we take a deeper look, turns out that it's actually pretty simple:

Following on from the previous piece, which was a response to Matthew Parris's piece "As an Atheist, I truly Believe Africa Needs God", a few more thoughts on using religion as a social tool.

Perhaps the right way to think about religion as a tool is as a catalyst. It does seem to have a supercharging power. Take our tendency to strive to improve our collective lot, to be benevolent and caring, etc. Add a pinch of religion, and the tendency is magnified.

However, the catalytic power works just as well with negative tendencies, such as the desire to dominate and exploit. Take the subjugation of women, mix in a few drops of the heady brew of religion, and watch how much more entrenched and hard-to-shift the subjugation becomes; add a few drops more, and watch how some become sufficiently intoxicated to start flinging acid in the faces of young girls who dare to attend school. Add a dollop of religion to homophobia, and suddenly the attitude becomes far more difficult to shift, grounded as it now seems to be in holy scripture. Mix some religion into an oppressive regime, and watch how its domination is magnified by the thoughts that God is on their side, that God has ordained them as leaders, that those who reject them are the enemies of God, etc. Take one slightly dodgy but charismatic leader, rub on a bit of religious snake-oil, and watch as he - it's almost always a he - takes on the irresistable persuasive powers of a David Koresh or the Reverend Jim Jones.

The catalytic power of religion is, in and of itself, morally neutral.

Yes, Parris can point to its application in positive ways, and can note how effective it has been in magnifying the positive. Dramatically effective.

But then, it has, often as not, magnified the negative. Dramatically.

Moreoever, once evangelical religion has been introduced into a community, it's a bugger to deal with when things start to go wrong. Attitudes can metamorphize fairly quickly, so that what started out as benign can quickly become highly toxic. And now you're really in trouble, because, being evangelically religious, it's now going to be very hard for any rational arguments and objections to reach them.

Introducing evangelical religion into a situation where there is already a great deal of corruption, homophobia, misogynism, etc. and yes, you may get some good impressive short-term effects. More dramatic effects than you could get by other means. But, boy, you are playing with fire.

Secularist, humanist views combined with a rational rather than a faith-based approach to problems may not have the short-term positive effects of evangelical religion. I admit they probably lack the dramatic impact religion can have.

But, over the long haul, such views are, I'd suggest, far more constructive and beneficial. And far less risky. I point to how Western civilization has gradually improved over the last 400 years since the Enlightenment.

Of course these are largely assertions, not here backed up by evidence, etc. But I think they are plausible claims and put them up for discussion (n.b. I know some religious folk will at this point start banging on about how the Holocaust was the fault of such Enlightenment-inspired secular views.)

Honestly, though, what that blog article reminded me of was an old story I heard about Danish pirate raids. You see, the pirates would raid the coastlines and make off with loot and slaves. So, to avoid being raided, many of them came up with a Danegeld, a bribe. In the short term, it prevented the wholesale destruction of the pirate raids, but the Danes were not stupid and quickly figured out that they could move right in and take over, and so they did. The ones who remained their own masters were the ones who were determined to give the Danes nothing but the points of their swords. Again, the Danes, not being stupid, decided to go for easier pickings.

In other words, while the short-term benefits might be better, the long-term ones are what people have to actually live with.

maybe not the root of evil, but it multiplies the evil. Stephen Law likens it to a catalyst:

Thanks for the article, Screwtape! Thought provoking indeed. Basically, I agree with Stephen Law. The essence of his theory is that when we add some religion to “ingredients” with negative moral effects, such as politically/economically motivated immorality or narrow-minded attitudes, the outcome becomes much worse. Actually, what he says looks pretty much like equation 1) of my previous post.

What I can add to Law's thesis is that those ingredients can never be taken independently from religion, because they are always strongly linked to religion. This inevitably leads us to equation 4) and thus to the conclusion that religion is the root of all evil.

In fact it would be more accurate to say that all evil is rooted in religion, rather than religion being the very root of religion. I don't think that religion in general is bad, but there are certain aspects of certain religions that humanity simply has to get rid of, such as the idea that there is a guaranteed afterlife full of bliss, or the idea that action can be substituted with prayer.

And I can't agree with Law's claim that the catalytic power of religion is morally neutral. It would be neutral if there were a balance between the positive and the negative outcomes that religion catalyses – but we all know that the negative outcomes dramatically outweigh the positive outcomes.

Matthew Parris' piece, in which he suggest that, though he is an atheist, he thinks religion is a powerful tool for good in Africa, something he recommends we foster and encourage, has predictably provoked responses from atheists. See previous post.

My small contribution here is just to repeat and edited part of my earlier post Is Religion Dangerous. The moral I wish to draw is, obviously, that even if religion can be a highly powerful and useful tool, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to use it.

Many, including Keith Ward, recommend religion for social engineering purposes. They claim that (i) it helps build a sense of community, (ii) it makes people happier and healthier, and (iii) it makes them better behaved [more highly motivated to do good, etc.].

Suppose it does. Even if it were useful in these ways, it seems to me there are nevertheless special dangers attaching to the use of religion as a tool.

Religion is immensely powerful and can behave in unpredictable ways. Take the young earth creationists ... now about 100 million Americans, including smart, college educated people.

[Who would have predicted that in just 50 years or so they would come to have such political influence in the US - to the point where even the last President appears to be a convert? Who would have predicted that 12% of British graduates would come to believe it by 2006]

We have here an illustration of the gobsmacking power of religion to get even very smart people to believe palpably stupid things...

Religion, it seems to me, is a bit like nuclear power. Immensely powerful and (arguably) useful. And, perhaps most of the time, it runs quite happily, doing not much harm [and perhaps even quite a bit of good].

But unless it is extremely carefully controlled and monitored, it can very quickly run out of control. Indeed, just as with nuclear power, you can predict the unpredicted. Somewhere along the line, something probably will go wrong, and when it does, you have a toxic situation on your hands. A religious Chernobyl.

Is nuclear power safe, or dangerous? Perhaps it can be used safely, but that's not to deny that it is potentially hugely dangerous. The same, I'd suggest, is true of religion.

Keith Ward agreed with me, by the way.

Let's also not forget that less than five of my lifetimes ago the Catholic Church was still garroting Europeans who failed to believe what the Pope told them. Yes, I know your local vicar seems like a nice chap, but we'd be wise to remember that our freedom from religious oppression and violence is a very recent development.

Thanks for posting Stephen's Law take on religion as a catalyst, screwtape

I disagree about the part where he said that religion is morally neutral. Everyone has to view religion as a whole, that means all the parts about genocide, mass murder, discrimination, slavery etc, not cherry picking only the good parts ( If there are actually any ) & only teaching those to their follower. You see, this is exactly what I hate the most about religion, whenever something good happens, they give credit to religion, but whenever something really atrocious like this 9 year old kid beheading happens, they immediately look the other way & blame the human who did it instead of religion.

So, the way I see it, religion isn't morally neutral. Even as a catalyst or as a tool, religion is a very dangerous thing that shouldn't be used in any way. The negatives will always outweigh the positives, especially if such positives can be achieved through so many other means outside of religion. So, why resort to religion at all to achieve positive outcomes ? Clearly there are far better & more efficient methods to help advance human kind in every way.

As far as I'm concerned, unlike religion, there is no secularist or humanist view that justifies children mutilation.

I disagree about the part where he said that religion is morally neutral.

I'm on the fence on that myself. If you look at the context of his point, it is in a discussion about using religion as a social engineering tool. Tools are neutral. Pick a tool, any tool - a screwdriver, a chainsaw, even a gun. None of them are inherently "aligned"morally. They can, and generally are, used for good. But they can also be used for bad. In that context, religion is the same.

But I also get that religion is not a tool in the same way as a screwdriver. A screwdriver is an inanimate object. Religion is a collection of ideas and rituals. Religion says things. It prescribes beliefs and actions. Some of them are generally good - do not steal. Some of them are plainly evil - kill the homos. But it can still be used either for good or for bad.

And I am not sure Law even believes it it morally neutral. He likens it to nuclear power. He agrees that while it can be a force of good, it is extremely dangerous and that accidents happen. And however safe you try to make it, there will always be a chance of failure, which means it will take a shit sideways eventually. So as Cadillac said, in the short term it can be good, but in the long term the bad will outweigh the good.

Cadillac: I disagree with your idea. Evil is not rooted in religion, because evil would exist if religion had never been invented in the first place. People would have killed each other, stolen from each other, enslaved each other, etc, regardless of whether religion existed or not. To say otherwise is to ignore the most fundamental parts of human nature which existed long before the first tree or rock was venerated by the first tribal religion.

You are also misunderstanding why the catalytic power of religion is morally neutral. You say that it can only be neutral if there is a balance between the positive and negative outcomes. Would you say that arsenic is morally evil, then? There are many more negative outcomes from it than positive, as far as humans are concerned. Yet, the arsenic itself does not do anything on its own. It takes someone using it in order for it to have an outcome, positive or negative. So the morality comes from the one who uses it, because the arsenic does not use itself. It is the same with religion; the morality of it comes from the people who believe in it, not from the mere fact of its existence.

Look up the thread on male genital mutilation circumcision. You'll find more than one secularist who is in favor of or indifferent to it.

LOL

I should've been more specific when I meant " children decapitation "I don't know what is it about religion and foreskin. Maybe RaymondKhessel can explain better since he is one of the victim of such mutilation

You are also misunderstanding why the catalytic power of religion is morally neutral. You say that it can only be neutral if there is a balance between the positive and negative outcomes.

Maybe that is the wrong criterion for "neutral"? Maybe neutral means it is indifferent to whether the outcomes are positive or negative. In that sense, religion seems to be neutral. And some people are so blinded by it, because they see religion as an ends and not a means, they too are indifferent to whether the outcomes are positive or negative.

I should've been more specific when I meant " children decapitation "I don't know what is it about religion and foreskin. Maybe RaymondKhessel can explain better since he is one of the victim of such mutilation

? I meant that in all seriousness. People in the west get outraged over female genital mutilation, but because it is part of the culture male genital mutilation is completely accepted. Religion can be horrible for advocating cutting off other parts of the body besides the head.

The only reason the separatists want separation is because they are muslim whilst the rest of the country is not. If they were bhuddist then they would have no reason to want to break away from their bhuddist compatriots.

It's a bit like the old 'the Troubles in Northern Ireland are political not religious' nonsense. Er, no the political divisions were and still are based on the religious differences. A religiously homogeneous population would not have a political environment that divides on sectarian lines.

The perpetrators of this vile act are scum but it takes idealogical or religious brainwashing to create such filth. There doesn't appear to be any particular political ideology to the separatist's actions beyond general objection to the Thai government (i.e. they don't seem to be marxist or fascist or some other kind of 'ist') therefore they'll undoubtedly have committed these murders safe in the knowledge that they are doing allah's will and they will receive their reward in paradise.

Of course, the theistically challenged will claim that their particular brand of god-bothering isn't like this and they do plenty of 'good'. It kind of makes me wonder just how many soup kitchens balance out beheading a child?

the problems in Ireland are about British colinization And the video would make the most people weep in disgust,theist and non-theist

« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 08:11:58 PM by 12 Monkeys »

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Chemical elements and compounds have nature, species have behavior. “Human nature” is a beautiful literary term, but unfortunately it is useless in our empirical world. In the empirical world killing, stealing and enslaving is not human nature – it is human behavior. And human behavior is not rooted exclusively in human genes, it is also a subject to environmental influences.

Even if we could attribute a certain set of characteristics to something called "human nature", then this set has to be attributable to all, or at least to most representatives of our species. But most people don't kill, most people don't steal, most people don't enslave. And I don't think that there is any evidence that killing, stealing and enslaving has been common before the first venerated rock.

Your metaphor with the arsenic seems to be quite tricky: Morality is attributable to humans and aspects of human life only. Religion is still a substantial aspect of human life, but arsenic is not. That is why arsenic will always be morally neutral, but we can't say the same for religion.

And of course, we can judge for the moral charge of religion only by its implication in our world. Do we have a choice? We can't unplug it even if we want. If religion stops interacting with our world, it won't be religion any more – it would be something else (or nothing at all).

As for Stephen Law, his main point is that religion is not always so useful. So when he says that its catalytic power is neutral, he is just being polite, nothing more.

I like the nuclear power metaphor to the point it shows how the world is trying to dispose of something only because it is potentially dangerous – no matter how useful this something is. And religion can only dream of being as useful as nuclear power.